| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 225 2004 SLD 225 2004 PTD 1994 |
Peshawar High Court
F.A.O. No. 42 of 2000, decision dated: 14-05-2004. dates of hearing: 10th & 11-02-2004
NASIR-UL-MULK, J
Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Eid Muhammad Khattak for Appellants. Waseem Sajjad, Ali Sajjad, Barrister Yousaf Khosa and Abdul Latif Yousafzai for
Respondents
F.A.O. No. 42 of 2000, decision dated: 14-05-2004. dates of hearing: 10th & 11-02-2004
NASIR-UL-MULK, J
Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Eid Muhammad Khattak for Appellants. Waseem Sajjad, Ali Sajjad, Barrister Yousaf Khosa and Abdul Latif Yousafzai for
Respondents
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
VS
GHAZI BAROTHA CONSTRUCTION
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 55,3,3a,143,2(21)(23)(30)(32)(40),80C,14 3B,163,SecondSched.
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XLI,R.34,XLVII,R.1,114
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- ----O. XLI, R. 34, XLVII, R. 1 & S. 114---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Order, Vol. V, Chap. IV, Part II, R. 5---Difference of opinion between Judges of Division Bench on the point, whether or not there should be re-hearing of appeal---Referee Judge opted for re-hearing of appeal---Validity---Such order of Referee Judge was a judicial order, which if not challenged, would attain finality---Division Bench while re hearing case would have no authority to review judicial order of Referee Judge. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----- ----O. XLI, R. 34---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Order, Vol. V Chap. IV, Part II, R. 5 ---Difference of opinion between Judges of Division Bench---Opinion of Referee Judge---Validity---Where one Judge of Division Bench did not express his opinion on merits, then opinion of Referee judge would not be decision by majority---Where Referee differed from opinion of Judge of Division Bench, who had expressed his opinion on merits, then case would be referred to another Referee Judge---Difference of opinion between Judges of Division Bench on the point of re-hearing of appeal---If Referee Judge decided that there was a case of re-hearing, then matter would be referred back to Division Bench---Where one Judge of Division Bench had already declined to sit on Bench, if case was to be re-heard, then proceedings before Division Bench would stand vitiated. Mubarik Ali Khan v. Anjuman Islamia, Punjab, Lahore PLD 1982 SC 315 and Muhammad Sayyar v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Peshawar PLD 1974 SC 257 ref. (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----Ss. 2(21)(23)(30)(32)(40), 80-C & 143-B---Registration of foreign company alongwith domestic company as resident AOPs and filing of statement under such status under 5.143-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Effect---Status of foreign company, if considered individually and not as AOPs, would be that of a non-resident company---Non-Pakistani company, if made arrangement for payment of dividends out of its income within Pakistan, would be included in definition of domestic company---Non-Pakistani company would fall within definition of resident company…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492